I think some people get so wrapped up in their, I want to say ‘fantasy’ but that’s not quite right, something more like ‘personal soap opera’ - or ‘externalized reflection’ anyway, bear with me.
Let’s say there were two Socrates, sharing the same body. One was your basic human “I”, the one that takes a leak after too much beer, and fancies his sister’s friends. The other was the public Socrates - the Socrates that Socrates saw reflected in the people he interacted with. The noble questioning spirit, gadfly to the power-mongers. Anyway - as far as I’ve read - the lowly human Socrates was nothing much to look at, and a bit of a pain in the arse personality-wise. So I expect that for Socrates - the reflected “I” was more important than the actual flesh and blood “I”…
So when it got down to the exile or hemlock dilemna… Socrates, not asking himself - “What would I do…?” instead asked himself “What would Socrates do…?”
And his internal model of the external reflection said - “Die for your principles”
And so he drank. Killing [size=75]Socrates [/size]but forever preserving [size=150]Socrates[/size].
If you’d like to get into semantics, I believe the cardinal element seperating ‘allowing oneself to perish’ from ‘suicide’ is intention. Intention, being conventionally defined as “An aim that guides action; an objective.”
Now, let’s say Socrates did knowingly take the poison (as he was instructed), expecting full well to die soon after. To determine whether or not the act can be classified as a suicide, we can ask ourselves if Socrates would be dissatisfied if the poison had failed. Suicidal patients, after having made a failed suicide attempt, are typically placed in restraints and heavily medicated so that they will not be able to make another effort. If Socrates’s poison had failed to kill, as Socrates had expected it to, would he have had to have been preventatively restrained? Would he have been more than eager to make a second effort?
No, he wouldn’t have made a second attempt but he would still make that same decision (to drink the poison) again and again.
Socrates chose an action which lead to his death, the same as every other form of ‘Suicide’. There is no difference between choosing to “slit my throat” as a means of “self killing” and choosing to “drink poison” as a means of “self killing”.
My point here is show that Suicide is not ‘moral’ nor ‘immoral’. Socrates cannot be considered a ‘hero’ for his suicide whilst another can be considered ‘selfish’ for comitting suicide.
Suicide is an act of making a decison fully knowing that it could/will lead to your death…smoking is suicide, Socrates comitted suicide and so on. A smoker would not try and kill himself (via slitting his throat) if he were somehowbrought back to life, does that mean he did not commit suicide? Do we not hear the phrase everyday “them cancer sticks are killing you”?
Rami, my esteemed colleague, the question you raised was whether or not Socrates’s death was a suicide. Under the dictionary definition of the word “suicide,” I have argued that it was not. I do not wish to dispute the ‘morality’ of suicide because morales are inherently personal. You cannot make a proof of an opinion. You have demonstrated the points of your argument, yes, and you’ve done an excellent job but do not expect to ever convince anyone that your testament is gospel (Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true. Not a religious teaching, per se.)
Yes, smoking cigarettes kills you. But smoking a cigarette is not an act of suicide. We do not arrest or medicate you on anti-depressants for smoking cigarettes. We did not charge the tobacco companies with “murder” (they were sued for misleading and lying their customers). This is because people do not smoke cigarettes to kill themselves. Tobacco companies did not lie about their products to kill their customers off. Socrates, I do not believe, drank the poison to kill himself. He drank the poison because he was instructed to, or/and because he saw it as his most honorable option. He did not seek out, manufacture and disgest the poison. He did not want to die. Ideally, I believe, he would’ve wished to live.
Yes, he did kill himself. Smokers do bring about their own deaths. Yes, the tobacco industries are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. But we do not mis-label an act as “murder” or “suicide.” The english language can be a very puncutal medium of communication if used correctly.
Also, yes you can believe the morality of act to equal, and thus be invariant from another act. But that is a morale question, not a logical one. One cannot “prove” (in a mathematical sense) an answer to a morale question. For example, you can claim the negligence of a smoker makes his act suicide, but in our language “negligence” and “suicide” do not mean the same thing.
Thank you, though, for this discussion. I’ve really enjoyed it.
When I hear the word suicide, associations of self pity, mental illness and self absorbtion come up. It is like homicide, yet on oneself. However, we tend to not use the word homicide to describe the application of capitol punishment, accidental killing (manslaughter) killing in war, etc.
Yet, there is only suicide and martyrdom for choosing to end one’s own biological functions. If someone could come up with a new word or introduce me to an existing one to describe a reasoned decision to choose one’s ultimate goals over one’s biological existence then I would be grateful.
It’s been a while since I read Socrates’ justification for drinking the poison in the Crito, but from what I remember his argument was something like this:
“This state has raised and safeguarded me through the rule of law. Now I am condemned to death by these same laws that once protected me. For the sake of the state and those that live in it, I must not betray the laws, for that would encourage disrespect for the laws and thereby the downfall of the state. Therefore I must follow the law’s edict that I die.”
To this argument I ask another question: suppose your parents, who have raised and safeguarded you by excercising their authority/law over you, condemn you to death for something you did not do. Should you die in obedience to their decree, lest your brothers and sisters be encouraged to disobey the parents as well?
I would say no. If your parents merely disowned you (and if the jury merely sent Socrates into exile) then I could see an argument in favor of obedience. But no unjust verdict should doom a man to death. No government, no authority should have that power.
I think Socrates should have fled with his friends and taught philosophy in the north, to the end of his days. But it’s hard to judge his decision without knowing his heart.
An interesting question. May I suggest, though, that there is no absolute clarity about whether you did the deed or not. Let us suppose that the accusation is imprecise or subjective (e.g. you corrupted the youth ) and that they are in as good a position as you to determine whether you did it or not. Does this change your answer?
For me, it would not change the answer. But we live in a different time.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. It makes perfect sense to me, Socrates was, afterall…human. Could this have been another subtle philosophical point? - theres the real You and then theres You (what one is regarded as) and there is no escape from this…interesting.
) and that they are in as good a position as you to determine whether you did it or not. Does this change your answer?